Disability, Deformity, and Disease in the Grimms' Fairy Tales

by Ann Schmiesing

Although dozens of disabled characters appear in the Grimms’ Children’s and Household Tales, the issue of disability in their collection has remained largely unexplored by scholars. In Disability, Deformity, and Disease in the Grimms’ Fairy Tales, author Ann Schmiesing analyzes various representations of disability in the tales and also shows how the Grimms’ editing (or “prostheticizing”) of their tales over seven editions significantly influenced portrayals of disability and related manifestations of physical difference, both in many individual tales and in the collection overall.

Schmiesing begins by exploring instabilities in the Grimms’ conception of the fairy tale as a healthy and robust genre that has nevertheless been damaged and needs to be restored to its organic state. In chapter 2, she extends this argument by examining tales such as “The Three Army Surgeons” and “Brother Lustig” that problematize, against the backdrop of war, characters’ efforts to restore wholeness to the impaired or diseased body. She goes on in chapter 3 to study the gendering of disability in the Grimms’ tales with particular emphasis on the Grimms’ editing of “The Maiden Without Hands” and “The Frog King or Iron Henry.” In chapter 4, Schmiesing considers contradictions in portrayals of characters such as Hans My Hedgehog and the Donkey as both cripple and “supercripple”—a figure who miraculously “overcomes” his disability and triumphs despite social stigma. Schmiesing examines in chapter 5 tales in which no magical erasure of disability occurs, but in which protagonists are depicted figuratively “overcoming” disability by means of other personal abilities or traits.

The Grimms described the fairy tale using metaphors of able-bodiedness and wholeness and espoused a Romantic view of their editorial process as organic restoration. Disability, Deformity, and Disease in the Grimms’ Fairy Tales shows, however, the extent to which the Grimms’ personal experience of disability and illness impacted the tales and reveals the many disability-related amendments that exist within them. Readers interested in fairy-tales studies and disability studies will appreciate this careful reading of the Grimms’ tales.

Genres: Nonfiction, Disability, Disability Studies, Fairy Tales, Folklore, Childrens, Books About Books

303 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 3, 2014

Reviews

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had thought that I would be able to guess what a book based on disability theory would have to say about traditional fairy tales – that is, pretty much what a feminist book on fairy tales might have to say about them. That is, that until pretty recently the writers of fairy tales have been, well, not exactly ‘inclusive’. If you are young and pretty no matter what horrible things the world throws at you, you are going to remain both young and pretty, but you will also get the boy, or girl, and the palace, and some carriages – and other stuff as well. Lots and lots of other stuff. But if you are foolish enough to be unattractive – and don’t get me counting the ways in which you can be unattractive, we don’t have all night – well, frog face, you have to admit you probably had it coming.

At one point in this she quotes Mitchell and Snyder who talk of ‘narrative prosthesis’ (people complain about academics, but that is such a lovely idea – since ‘all narratives operate out of a desire to compensate for a limitation or to reign in excess’. Anyway, the fuller quote she then gives ends with this sentence, ‘Narratives turn signs of cultural deviance into textually marked bodies.’ I love that to bits. In fact, I would change it and say that LIFE eventually marks all of our bodies in ways that can be read as our own narratives, we become our scars, we become limps and wrinkles and flaking bits – but perhaps this is nowhere as true as with the disabled. As a very dear friend of mine who is blind says – he was marked early by an indelible stamp of disability.

So, this is the idea I was expecting to be played up almost exclusively in the tales. Physical perfection is the equivalent of moral perfection – disability is deformity and is therefore a moral deformity as well. The argument would then go – look, sorry there might be some unintended consequences here, but fairy tales require simple equations and equating ugly with evil, that’s about as simple an equation as you can get. No hard feelings, but that’s the way this world works.

The thing is that the Grimm brothers were very aware of their own physical limitations. And it seems clear that they edited the texts of the stories they were told in ways that were sympathetic to the physical disabilities of others. In fact, they often highlighted the impacts of disabilities – this is made clear in the discussion of The Frog Prince. The frog in this needs to chase after the princess when she runs off with the ball, forgetting her promise. He struggles up the stairs and makes excessive noises in doing so, highlighting the effort involved. It’s a stunningly interesting idea. The frog’s ‘disability’ is made completely apparent. In fact, the point of this is to do the exact opposite of what I had predicted earlier would be the case. It is the disabled frog who is virtuous and the beautiful, fit bodied princess proves to be morally stunted. The moral of the story is for her to see beyond outward appearance – even if the ‘ableist’ assumptions are ultimately confirmed by the frog becoming a handsome prince.

Similar themes are highlighted in other stories along the way – but what I also found interesting in this book was the idea that the Grimms were involved in a similar process with the stories they were collecting. They understood these to be somewhat disabled too. That is, bits were missing or were not quite right. And so they added to them or subtracted from them. They had notions of the ‘perfect’ version of these stories and so they saw their role as a kind of medical operation to bring back to completeness these somewhat disabled stories.

The thing I’m going to really remember from this book is the idea that various diseases and deformities were often understood to be a kind of mixing of animal and human – so that someone might be referred to as being frog-like or goat-like due to their disability and some resemblance this had to an animal. These characters were often seen as being evil or nasty in some way. However, dwarfs or other ‘complete’ humans had equal or better chances of being good guys. You know, for every Rumpelstiltskin there are seven dwarfs, so to speak. But even this isn’t a foolproof definition, as stories like Beauty and the Beast attest.

I really enjoyed this book. As the author says, there is often nothing in the text itself to denigrate disabilities, and this seems quite intentional, even if the stories have been used or understood as such since they were published. We struggle to see beyond our prejudices – especially if these are not refuted with force. This book provides a deeply interesting reading of many popular stories from the Grimm collection. Well worth the read.

[Victoria Edwards · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was well-researched and not difficult to read. Though Schmiesing opts for a more formal voice, this allows her to authoritatively strike a path for future intersections of disability and fairy tale studies. Schmiesing draws extensively from both disability and fairy tale scholars, making a clear and compelling argument for the importance of seeing disabilities in the Grimms' tales from a social rather than symbolic perspective. Schmiesing also recognizes the variety of approaches to disabilities within the field of disability studies, acknowledging both the social and medical perspectives and striking for analyses that recognize both views. I am impressed by this book and look forward to reading more books that intersect these two areas of study as they gain popularity.

[Rozzy]

this is the first book i’ve actually read word for word cover to cover for school this year, therefore it’s the first one i can count on here. consequently, it is also the only book where my prof has straight up said that we don’t need to read it thoroughly, that we only need to read fully the introduction and the chapter that is most relevant to our papers… so i guess this is to say that this is compelling enough to make me not do less work

[Kay Daniels · Rating 5 out of 5]

So thorough! Really interesting perspective, well backed up narrative, and applicable across the field of Disability Studies, LOVED!

[Jenny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really interesting and illuminating. But it's easier to read if you know the discussed fairy tales beforehand.

[Clare Moore · Rating 4 out of 5]

Extremity well researched. A lot of attention paid to different versions of the fairy tales and the Grimms’ editorial intervention. Really excellent.

[Grace · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn't always agree with Schmiesing's thoughts, and I often had questions. But it was a great introduction to disability studies, and even when I wasn't agreeing with her, I was still interested in the argument. I was surprised that there was no reference to Eve in the discussion on "The Maiden without Hands." I understand that her thesis has nothing to do with Biblical references in the tales, but it seemed to me that at least a passing acknowledgment should have been there, since she was punished for eating an apple. But that was my one major hang-up. Generally very informative and interesting.

[Mills College Library]

398.20943 S3549 2014